Communities Mental Health and Wellbeing Fund for adults: year 2 - monitoring and reporting summary

Section C - Learning And Reflections

1. TSI Feedback

What we asked

We asked TSIs to share any learning points or improvements to implementation of the Fund going forward.

Key observations

Fund administration

Returns indicate a number of points in relation to fund administration:

• Several TSIs reported that new groups supported last year to apply and become constituted have subsequently been able to complete strong applications this year on their own – this demonstrates success in the capacity building priority of the Fund.
• Some TSIs indicated that a longer-term funding approach would greatly benefit the projects funded and the communities these projects support.
• Some noted that the timing of distributing the Fund to TSIs (in August 2022) was a barrier to Fund dispersal, as it led to short lead-in times, including less time for planning initial support to potential applicants and for application assessment.
• TSIs also expressed a desire for more time to develop partnership working.
• Another noted that compressed time scales for consideration of applications have led to difficulties around staffing considerations.

Guidance and support

• Several TSIs indicated that they had found the National Network meetings helpful in terms of learning about other approaches to administration and noted how this has directly influenced development of their own processes.
• Respondents indicated that the updated guidance was very useful and it was clear that feedback from TSIs was heard and appreciated in the development of the guidance.
• It was noted that earlier guidance would have been useful, with lots of work involved in developing the Fund in advance of the launch of each Year. For example, the guidance documentation for Year 2 came out very close to the agreed launch deadline. Having guidance earlier would give more time for planning.
• Some TSIs indicated a desire for the evaluation criteria to be published in the guidance document.
• Others highlighted the importance of greater clarity on spend figures and the return of underspent funds. It would also be good to reinforce the auditable rules and requirements which prohibit the rolling forward of funding between financial years.

Submitting returns

In relation to making a survey return:

• The survey was designed to allow TSIs to download their own copy of their responses, however, some noted issues in saving their return.
• A few said that it would have been helpful to have the monitoring return provided in a format with all questions to make it easier to prepare as different staff are responsible for different elements. However, it should be noted that a PDF of the survey was provided alongside the survey link.
• There were some challenges identified with the Excel project level return, with some requesting more advance notice of requirements to ensure these can be reflected in application forms.
• It may be helpful to have a template provided by SG to ensure consistency across TSIs.
• More clarity from Scottish Government on the monitoring and evaluation required to ensure that all information can be collected from the start.

2. Conclusions

• Tackling priority themes: Year 2 of the Fund has included coverage of all the Fund key priorities set out for the Fund this year, with social isolation and loneliness remaining the most common Fund priority theme. It is positive to see poverty and inequality is a key focus, given the Fund’s increased emphasis on socio-economic disadvantage and the cost of living. Whilst still adhering strongly to the priorities identified in the fund guidance, TSIs are enhancing nationally set Fund guidance with a range of additional local priority themes and groups. This demonstrates the importance of local based decisions.
• Reaching target groups: Groups such as LGBTQI+ communities, refugees and those with no recourse to public funds and people from a minority ethnic background continue to represent the least number of awards to date. A lesson from Year 1 was to better understand the quality of the impact on target groups. The detailed responses of projects in considering accessibility and inclusion are therefore very encouraging to see. Furthermore, partnerships have considerably extended their efforts around supporting equalities considerations throughout their promotional, application support and assessment processes, with a rich and varied set of actions in place to underpin this. This work is a real strength of the approach to Year 2 particularly the rise in the targeted approaches to reaching specific target groups.
• Local partnership plans: Overall, Local Partnership Plans showed a clear progression from Year 1 planning, with TSIs building positively on existing partnership arrangements and their approach to managing the Fund.
• Local Partnership Working: A wide number of TSIs have extended the membership of their Local Partnership Groups whilst also broadening and deepening the connections they are making between local organisations, statutory bodies, funded groups and so on. Challenges to effective local partnership working were very similar to last year, with time, competing demands and resource restraints being the most common issues.
• Lived experience: It is positive to see 100% involvement of HSCPs in Year 2 and notable effort to further involve those with lived experience in Local Partnership Groups. It is also positive to see that all TSIs involved those with lived experience in the delivery of the Fund (compared to 80% in Year 1).
• TSI administration and capacity building grant: Views on the administration of the Fund were positive and it is clear that the administration and capacity grant has been well valued and used to undertake a range of necessary aspects of the Fund. Key uses are staff employment, training and support to applicants and awardees, Fund promotion, software and expenses to involve those with lived experience.
• Learning/feedback: TSIs are reflecting on learning from Year 1 fund administration process and feeding this into Year 2 processes. It is encouraging to see the range of positive comments were made around Year 2 guidance and the support provided by the National TSI Network meetings. TSIs have provided a range of constructive comments around the need for further clarity and earlier guidance, as well as process improvements on reporting which can be used to directly inform Year 3 guidance and monitoring requirements.